2016 South Side Service Changes

[Busjack]

My stewing about business plan and customer surveys leads me to asking the following question:

Is the extension of 4 from 95th to 115th because people want to get from 113th to 79th or 67th, and basically has nothing to do with whether they want a 1-3/4 hour one seat ride downtown?

[jajuan]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

My stewing about business plan and customer surveys leads me to asking the following question:

Is the extension of 4 from 95th to 115th because people want to get from 113th to 79th or 67th, and basically has nothing to do with whether they want a 1-3/4 hour one seat ride downtown?

That was my thinking, and it actually makes sense if that is the case because I can't see riding from 115th to downtown on a bus when the Red Line is there. Either way you hit on a reason why the 115 would still be relevant with no alterations in headways after the 4 to 115th extension goes into effect. 

[Tcmetro]

I guess the idea is to improve service for intra-south side riders. Per a friend, there's quite a bit of transfer activity at 95th and Cottage.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

Per a friend, there's quite a bit of transfer activity at 95th and Cottage.

That was essentially what I was thinking.

[andrethebusman]

Another thought - thru route 95 and 30 on Sunday. 30 and 95E are basically an end to end connection at 92/Commercial anyway.

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, andrethebusman said:

Another thought - thru route 95 and 30 on Sunday. 30 and 95E are basically an end to end connection at 92/Commercial anyway.

Considering how maths22's tracker shows that a whole lot of buses are not on the indicated pullout route, the only difference would be internal. If anyone is transferring at South Chicago, CTA would not want to lose the unlinked trip and possible transfer revenue.

Also, 95E is not exactly every 20 minutes on Sunday (as is 30), and the next announced change is combining it with 95W.

[Sam92]

How I personally would tweak the south east if I were in charge... 

[TaylorTank1229]

34 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

How I personally would tweak the south east if I were in charge... 

I said this before as well for when CTA got rid of X28. Nothing changed except 28 making downtown rush trips, with reduced hours at that. I thought it would be simpler just to have X28 run limited stops from 95th to 57th other than eliminating the express route altogether.

[Busjack]

29 minutes ago, TaylorTank1229 said:

I said this before as well for when CTA got rid of X28. Nothing changed except 28 making downtown rush trips

Didn't even put all trips on Lake Park.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like "we got rid of all the other X designations."

On Sam's text exchange, it isn't a question of whether 26 is being used to its potential, but whether demand is there to turn it essentially into the 147, as far as operation pattern is concerned.

[Sam92]

9 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Didn't even put all trips on Lake Park.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like "we got rid of all the other X designations."

On Sam's text exchange, it isn't a question of whether 26 is being used to its potential, but whether demand is there to turn it essentially into the 147, as far as operation pattern is concerned.

That's why I suggested letting 71 end at exchange or (just keeping the alternate trips to exchange for people not going all the way downtown but still want the red line) and letting 26 handle any increased ridership the 71 were to take on cause the whole reason 71 took on south deering was a one seat ride to the red line which is most likely is to finish a trip to downtown.  If there is demand for the 71 in south deering to the red line why not offer those same riders an even different option. After 71st the 26 basically has maybe 10 stops if that before going express to downtown vs the 71 which has to trek across the east side to get to the red line. Which seems more appealing?  If we're comparing 147 convenience wise people going downtown from south shore would probably appreciate the 26 over the 71 same way a north side around say bryn mawr would prefer the 147 due to less stops 

[Busjack]

17 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

That's why I suggested letting 71 end at exchange or (just keeping the alternate trips to exchange for people not going all the way downtown but still want the red line) and letting 26 handle any increased ridership the 71 were to take on cause the whole reason 71 took on south deering was a one seat ride to the red line which is most likely is to finish a trip to downtown.

But that essentially gets down to why CTA instituted both 14 and 15, except that 15 took over 51 east of the Red Line.

Especially since downtown is not the business center it once was, it can't be assumed that everyone going to the Red Line wants to go downtown. They may want to go to the north side. In fact, that was the main bone of contention when the Englewood-Jackson Park was swapped from Howard to Lake, as either routing (subway or Wabash L) would get them downtown.

I think the only thing the merger of 27-South Deering and 71 demonstrated was that after a transfer to the L at 63-Stony Island was no longer possible, riders on 27 did not want to transfer at 63-King Dr.

[jajuan]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

How I personally would tweak the south east if I were in charge... 

Well your text buddy shouldn't look for a termination of the Green Line in the Loop because the feds probably haven't gotten all the the return on their investment in helping finance the rebuild of the line 20 years ago, CTA investing millions to build the Cermak-McCormick Place station just recently, and the upcoming increases in service on the Line. Plus do we really want to put CTA in the line of fire of racism accusations by doing that? We already saw the recent closure and rebuild of the Dan Ryan leg of the Red Line stir back up the old fears, stemming from the Green Line rebuild days and the subsequent south side experience of seeing the late Rev. Brazier manipulate the CTA into abruptly cutting the Jackson Park leg of at Cottage Grove, of CTA closing down a rail line for renovation being a chance for CTA cutting back rail service. 

[Busjack]

12 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Well your text buddy shouldn't look for a termination of the Green Line in the Loop because the feds probably haven't gotten all the the return on their investment in helping finance the rebuild of the line 20 years ago, CTA investing millions to build the Cermak-McCormick Place station just recently, and the upcoming increases in service on the Line. Plus do we really want to put CTA in the line of fire of racism accusations by doing that?

Also, if the texter's idea that running bus is more efficient than the L, the Green Line would have received the Cicero-Berwyn treatment, although in the latter case, there there were issues about street crossings.

If the early days of the Skokie Swift demonstrated anything, riders are not as willing to ride a rapid transit substitute bus (97 substituted for the Niles Center L in about 1948) as rapid transit (compare ridership on the Skokie Swift in 1964)

[jajuan]

2 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Also, if the texter's idea that running bus is more efficient than the L, the Green Line would have received the Cicero-Berwyn treatment, although in the latter case, there there were issues about street crossings.

If the early days of the Skokie Swift demonstrated anything, riders are not as willing to ride a rapid transit substitute bus (97 substituted for the Niles Center L in about 1948) as rapid transit (compare ridership on the Skokie Swift in 1964)

Plus the renovation of the O'Hare leg of the Blue Line getting dragged out over four years shows that besides logistical reasons, CTA does not want to get back into the fights with affected communities over closing a rail line down completely for two long. The largest reasons the CTA got around the five month closure of the Dan Ryan Red Line branch was because of the relative closeness of the Green Line tracks to facilitate the reroute of the Red Line during construction and the extensive coverage of the R routes as part of the bus replacement*. 

 

*We did see at the time that 29 saw a big jump in riders from some folks convincing themselves mistakenly that the 29 would be quicker than the using one of the R routes in combination with the rerouted Red Line in getting downtown and the north side. 

[Busjack]

6 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Plus the renovation of the O'Hare leg of the Blue Line getting dragged out over four years shows that besides logistical reasons, CTA does not want to get back into the fights with affected communities over closing a rail line down completely for two long.

The "too long" gets down to CTA did not have $600 million of Gov. Quinn's Illinois Jobs Now money it spent on the Red Line. However, I agree that there is no way CTA could come up with enough R56 buses to take care of that load, nor move them on the Kennedy Expressway or Milwaukee Ave.

We'll have to see what CTA does if and when the Eisenhower project happens.

My reference was more to permanent substitutions.

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Well your text buddy shouldn't look for a termination of the Green Line in the Loop because the feds probably haven't gotten all the the return on their investment in helping finance the rebuild of the line 20 years ago, CTA investing millions to build the Cermak-McCormick Place station just recently... 

Completely forgot about the Cermak issue but maybe terminating at 35th bronzeville and cutting the #1 bus would be a better move.  Also to clarify I'm the guy with the blue chat window .  My reasoning for the green line was it feels like the green line is using a lot of electricity for the number of riders. I have yet to see a green line car that I've had to stand on south of 35th especially when the X3/X4 were running (green line was running the frequency that it's getting bumped up to in fall back around that time period). So with that I figured ok yeah the green line would be a loss at first but considering a lot of cottage grove riders shoot for the 2 in the rush cause it's more frequent along with the number of riders that stayed on the X buses down there instead of waiting for a train that runs at 1/3 of the frequency of the buses the trade off seems pretty good and the money from not having to staff those stations could beef of the service in the area.  Also I'm pretty sure riders would appreciate a closer ride that goes down town instead of going all the way to the red line which can be irratating in the rush hour. 

[Busjack]

12 minutes ago, Sam92 said:

My reasoning for the green line was it feels like the green line is using a lot of electricity for the number of riders

Even at that, it would take 4 40 foot buses to accommodate a lightly loaded 6 car train, and electricity is still cheaper than diesel. Even if you do away with CAs, you still need 4 bus drivers per train.

Re  71: I previously mentioned that you can't assume they are going downtown, and if they really want to get downtown by a more direct route, they can transfer to the J14 at 71st and Jeffery.

[jajuan]

6 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Even at that, it would take 4 40 foot buses to accommodate a lightly loaded 6 car train, and electricity is still cheaper than diesel. Even if you do away with CAs, you still need 4 bus drivers per train.

I previously mentioned that you can't assume they are going downtown, and if they really want to get downtown by a more direct route, they can transfer to the J14 at 71st and Jeffery.

Right. You got Red Line riders who are passing downtown and going to jobs on the north side and Evanston or Skokie, and Green Line riders taking advantage of the one ride for jobs west in the city and nearby western burbs. Besides with the Green Line only two to four blocks from the Red Line, that's not as much an inconvenience in rush hour as getting from say 130th or 119th to the 95th terminal for a ride to other points on the south side that are still to the relative east.

[Tcmetro]

Cutting the Green Line would be a fool's move. The infrastructure and railcars are all relatively new, a yard exists at 63rd/King, and Woodlawn and Englewood are starting to get some meaningful development. U of C is interested in developing the empty lots in Washington Park. Closing the train just means less transit riders, and even though off-peak ridership is light, a significant increase in bus service would be necessary to manage peak commuters. 

Also, to manage better express bus service on King and Cottage some sort of infrastructure improvements are going to be needed. Real bus lanes (i.e. taking car lanes away) will be needed to ensure that travel times are competitive with rail. Off-board fare payment to speed boarding. More buses means more labor costs and garage expansions. This negates some of the supposed cost savings of closing the Green Line and would likely be a detriment to the low income communities that depend on reliable transit service for job access.

[Busjack]

48 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

a yard exists at 63rd/King

No, 63-Racine.

There is a yard at 61-Calumet but is not in use.

49 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

U of C is interested in developing the empty lots in Washington Park

Unsure, when. The Obama Library apparently going to Jackson Park (5800 S. Stony Island) precludes any synergistic effect on Garfield.

Also, my frame of reference is back when 3 flats were so thick in the Grand Boulevard neighborhood that you could not see the L from Washington Park. Certainly not the case today.

On your infrastructure points, there used to be X3 and X4, and, essentially, ART type improvements were not made to X9 and X49, and except for TSP, won't be. Nonetheless, I agreed that relying on bus substitution for rapid transit is not economical.

[jajuan]

On 8/10/2016 at 8:08 AM, Tcmetro said:

Cutting the Green Line would be a fool's move. The infrastructure and railcars are all relatively new, a yard exists at 63rd/King, and Woodlawn and Englewood are starting to get some meaningful development. U of C is interested in developing the empty lots in Washington Park. Closing the train just means less transit riders, and even though off-peak ridership is light, a significant increase in bus service would be necessary to manage peak commuters. 

Also, to manage better express bus service on King and Cottage some sort of infrastructure improvements are going to be needed. Real bus lanes (i.e. taking car lanes away) will be needed to ensure that travel times are competitive with rail. Off-board fare payment to speed boarding. More buses means more labor costs and garage expansions. This negates some of the supposed cost savings of closing the Green Line and would likely be a detriment to the low income communities that depend on reliable transit service for job access.

I'll agree with you that bus service isn't adequate to replace L service nine times out of ten, but as noted by Busjack X3 and X4 did exist without separate bus lanes. From memory of the large number of folks venting to Rodriguez about their eliminations six years ago with the other crosstown express routes, they were performing well without the bus lanes. The recently restored X9 and X49 are, from personal experience as a passenger on both, performing quite well without separate bus lanes. There is a difference between BRT/ART and limited stop express, and CTA is showing currently with X9 and X49 that you can provide limited stop service without dumping the type of millions needed for the full BRT treatment that you were describing. On that part, you were kind of jumping the gun. 

[Tcmetro]

Yes, but X3 and X4 buses existed alongside the Green Line. That's different than having no trains. If CTA wanted to cut train service then there is going to be a need for infrastructure like bus lanes so that people can get in and out of downtown in a reasonable time during rush hour.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

Yes, but X3 and X4 buses existed alongside the Green Line. That's different than having no trains. If CTA wanted to cut train service then there is going to be a need for infrastructure like bus lanes so that people can get in and out of downtown in a reasonable time during rush hour.

Which means you admit that bustitution isn't more efficient.

[artthouwill]

I was just wondering if , at some point, there may be a route swap between 77th and 103rd where the 29 returns to 77th and 103rd picks up the 4, especially since the route gets extended to 115th Street.   Or if 77th and 103rd might share the 4 with the 115th trips being operated by 103rd garage.   I don't think this is initially happening,  though I believe that something along these lines will eventually occur. 

[Busjack]

10 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I was just wondering if , at some point, there may be a route swap between 77th and 103rd where the 29 returns to 77th and 103rd picks up the 4, especially since the route gets extended to 115th Street.   Or if 77th and 103rd might share the 4 with the 115th trips being operated by 103rd garage.   I don't think this is initially happening,  though I believe that something along these lines will eventually occur. 

Probably depends on what motivated sending 29 and later 6 to 103. Seems like there is an excess of garage capacity in the south, while a shortage in the central area.